Napoles’ timing is off

Estrada is still out on bail because of the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan stating that he was not identified in the information as the main plunderer

The Sandiganbayan resumed hearings on the plunder case of Jinggoy Ejercito Estrada wherein the anti-graft court questioned the lawyers of Janet Lim Napoles on the timing of the filing of her motion to dismiss at the late stage of the proceedings where the prosecution has already presented evidence and rested its case.

The defense lawyers of Napoles led by Atty. Rony Garay explained that an issue affecting the jurisdiction of the court can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and cannot be waived by the parties or the court since jurisdiction over the subject matter or the offense is conferred by law.

Garay asked the tribunal to rule on the motion to dismiss they filed last 5 September, arguing that the information does not charge the crime of plunder over which the anti-graft court has jurisdiction or can validly exercise its jurisdiction.

The motion to dismiss was prompted by the 2 September resolution of the anti-graft court where it said that the information identified Estrada as the main plunderer, a new declaration that runs counter to the anti-graft court’s earlier resolution granting bail to Estrada because the information failed to identify him as the main plunderer as required by the case of former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Estrada is still out on bail because of the Resolution of the Sandiganbayan stating that he was not identified in the information as the main plunderer.

The defense stressed that the charge against Napoles was void after the prosecution failed to amend it to comply with the requirements in the Arroyo case.

In the SC ruling requiring a main plunderer for a valid indictment, the latter must be among other things, a public official not a private individual like Napoles.

The defense counsels of Napoles earlier clarified that the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court is yet to rule on the motion to dismiss they filed last 5 September.

The Sandigan last June denied the demurrer filed by Napoles filed last April and on 2 September, also denying the ex parte motion filed by the defense last August prompting the defense to file a motion to dismiss.

In it the counsels are asking the Sandiganbayan anti-graft court trying Estrada to dismiss the plunder complaint against Napoles, stressing that the prosecution’s failure to clearly identify a “main plunderer” in the complaint has the effect of voiding the information for plunder.